Australia Australia - William Tyrrell Disappeared While Playing in Yard - Kendall (NSW) #77

[Warshawski]

Sounds to me that you have the same interpretation. Just drsleuth took it one step further.

The Coronial team distanced themselves from the brief sent to the DPP. To dispel any theories that they might promote or agree with such an action.

Not so SA.

Just on here alone, there were all manner of ‘suggestions‘ when news came that there would be an inquest hearing yesterday, including it could mean the DPP is dismissing the Police considered charging of FFCarer.

IMO, Craddock was making it clear that the Inquest Court is entirely seperate from anything else that may be going on, so for people not to draw conclusions either way about anything..

 

[Angeline]

Does anyone find it interesting that the FFC never mentioned William in all the time she was bugged? I'm sure that's what the cops were waiting for her to do. Is it possible (if she's involved in his disappearance), that she's convinced MFC and her immediate family that William was abducted? I really hope this gets resolved soon.

 

[SouthAussie]

Does anyone find it interesting that the FFC never mentioned William in all the time she was bugged?

That's a new one. How would anyone (other than the participants of the NSWCC hearing) know such a thing?

NSWCC hearings are under a NPO. Link

The only thing we have heard about the hearing is what has been able to be released due to the "false or misleading" charges.

It is also likely that not every room in the house contained a listening device as judges usually put a restriction on where they can be placed (eg: not in bathroom, not in bedrooms).

imo

 

[Angeline]

That's a new one. How would anyone (other than the participants of the NSWCC hearing) know such a thing?

NSWCC hearings are under a NPO. Link

The only thing we have heard about the hearing is what has been able to be released due to the "false or misleading" charges.

It is also likely that not every room in the house contained a listening device as judges usually put a restriction on where they can be placed (eg: not in bathroom, not in bedrooms).

imo

Oh, I was just going by the information that has been released from the bugging, involving the alleged assault of other child. I thought that if anything had been said implicating involvement in William's disappearance, it would have come out, but maybe not.

 

[SouthAussie]

Oh, I was just going by the information that has been released from the bugging, involving the alleged assault of other child. I thought that if anything had been said implicating involvement in William's disappearance, it would have come out, but maybe not.

If they had recorded FM saying anything incriminating, she would have been charged by NSWPOL.
If not for what she (hypothetically) was recorded saying, then at the very least for lying to the NSWCC about it.


Link

Which doesn't mean they never spoke of William during those 10 months or more, which is what your initial post said.
It seems unlikely that they never spoke of William, considering the amount of pressure that was being placed upon FM.

imo

 

[Detective Willy]

If the general Public knew all of the things that the Police know, then maybe everyone would be 100% convinced that the FFC is guilty like SFR are.

IMO.

 

[SouthAussie]

If the general Public knew all of the things that the Police know, then maybe everyone would be 100% convinced that the FFC is guilty like SFR are.

IMO.

Well, there are two independent bodies who are looking at the "evidence". The DPP and the Coroner. We will see what shakes out from that.

Evidently SFR does not feel they have enough to charge FM without relevant supportive advice from the DPP.

And even then they are not saying FM is guilty of harming William. Just that they think she dumped him by the riding school, where he was not found.

 

[drsleuth]

Well, there are two independent bodies who are looking at the "evidence". The DPP and the Coroner. We will see what shakes out from that.

Evidently SFR does not feel they have enough to charge FM without relevant supportive advice from the DPP.

And even then they are not saying FM is guilty of harming William. Just that they think she dumped him by the riding school, where he was not found.

To add, also the Corner did not find "evidence" to refer the case to the DPP, clearly stated by Mr Craddock at last weeks directions hearing.

The counsel assisting, Gerard Craddock SC, told deputy state coroner Harriet Grahame that the advice being sought from prosecutors was not linked to the coronial proceedings.

“I should make as clear as possible that request for advice has nothing to do with the inquest,” he said.

“It’s not a coronial referral. It did not come from the counsel assisting team.”

William Tyrrell disappearance: advice on potential charges to be given to NSW police within months, coroner hears

Advice from prosecutors about the 3-year-old’s disappearance will be provided by the end of January

www.theguardian.com

 

[Detective Willy]

Well, there are two independent bodies who are looking at the "evidence". The DPP and the Coroner. We will see what shakes out from that.

Evidently SFR does not feel they have enough to charge FM without relevant supportive advice from the DPP.

And even then they are not saying FM is guilty of harming William. Just that they think she dumped him by the riding school, where he was not found.

Why do you think the DPP believes it will take approx. 4 more months to make a decision?

Surely it must be lineball if they think there is or isn’t enough evidence for a successful prosecution.

IMO this points to a degree of guilt already or it would be a quick no?

Otherwise, why do you think they are taking so long to make a decision one way or the other?

 

[drsleuth]

Why do you think the DPP believes it will take approx. 4 more months to make a decision?

Surely it must be lineball if they think there is or isn’t enough evidence for a successful prosecution.

IMO this points to a degree of guilt already or it would be a quick no?

Otherwise, why do you think they are taking so long to make a decision one way or the other?

Maybe no one has even looked at the case yet

 

[SouthAussie]

Why do you think the DPP believes it will take approx. 4 more months to make a decision?

Surely it must be lineball if they think there is or isn’t enough evidence for a successful prosecution.

IMO this points to a degree of guilt already or it would be a quick no?

Otherwise, why do you think they are taking so long to make a decision one way or the other?

It is a 9 year old "cold case". I wouldn't think it has a huge priority in the ODPP case load.

If the police had enough evidence to charge, they would have done so. The ODPP knows this.
So, we wait until the ODPP has the opportunity to fully review whatever has been submitted to them.

I would think that the ODPP will not only look at if there is sufficient evidence against FM, but will also assess the viability of winning such a case. Has every other POI/scenario been positively ruled out? Is there evidence to show that no-one else could have committed a crime against William? Is it possible that William got himself lost and has been overlooked somewhere?

 

[iiiii's]

It's possible the ODPP have made recommendations to SFR for the evidence that they would need to obtain for their office to take it further and it is a timeframe depending on due process, i.e. results of other court matters, also my hope is that specific police solicitors are present at the next sitting to ask pertinent questions of FFC or anyone they might think is relevant to advance their theory. MOO

 

[LolaAngelina]

I think the point of the day is that Craddock made it very clear that the Coroner had nothing to do with the police brief being handed to the DPP for an opinion.

The articles say that Craddock approached the DPP recently, and they said "by January". Yet he still went ahead with a Directions Hearing now, and an inquest resumption date. Probably to get the inquest date onto the calendar because they want to wrap this matter up.

I wonder if it was expressed to Craddock that charges were unlikely.

It's possible the ODPP have made recommendations to SFR for the evidence that they would need to obtain for their office to take it further and it is a timeframe depending on due process, i.e. results of other court matters, also my hope is that specific police solicitors are present at the next sitting to ask pertinent questions of FFC or anyone they might think is relevant to advance their theory. MOO

It’s an inquest run by the coroner. She works on facts. It’s not for police or anyone else to question people to advance their theory.

 

[SouthAussie]

It’s an inquest run by the coroner. She works on facts. It’s not for police or anyone else to question people to advance their theory.

Yes, I think the inquest is as it should be. An independent inquiry.

The police lawyers had their opportunities at the NSWCC.

 

[LolaAngelina]

Yes, I think the inquest is as it should be. An independent inquiry.

The police lawyers had their opportunities at the NSWCC.

Yes they have had plenty of opportunities and as far as we know have come up with nothing to further Williams case

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Yes they have had plenty of opportunities and as far as we know have come up with nothing to further Williams case

That's what tunnel vision gets you...nowhere.

 

[Warshawski]

To add, also the Corner did not find "evidence" to refer the case to the DPP, clearly stated by Mr Craddock at last weeks directions hearing.

The counsel assisting, Gerard Craddock SC, told deputy state coroner Harriet Grahame that the advice being sought from prosecutors was not linked to the coronial proceedings.

“I should make as clear as possible that request for advice has nothing to do with the inquest,” he said.

“It’s not a coronial referral. It did not come from the counsel assisting team.”

William Tyrrell disappearance: advice on potential charges to be given to NSW police within months, coroner hears

Advice from prosecutors about the 3-year-old’s disappearance will be provided by the end of January

www.theguardian.com

With all due respect Doc, I think you may be taking some liberty with that bolded interpretation of Gerard Craddock’s statement to deputy state coroner Harriet Grahame.

Craddock is not the Coroner. He is a Barrister, appointed to assist the Coroner in this Inquest.

I’d presume his responsibilities include keeping her informed of occurrences that may perhaps have a bearing on the Inquest ( e.g. someone being charged over William’s disappearance/ death / accessory to / after / etc )

It’s well documented that he fulfilled those duties at thIs latest hearing, notifying Ms Grahame & court records, that the Police have put a submission to the DPP regards possible charges in relation to William.

Ms Grahame holds the power in this Inquest, and decides what goes where etc in relation to the Inquest (404 )

The Coroner may summon witnesses, and people found lying are guilty of perjury.
Additional powers of the Coroner include the power of subpoena, the power of arrest, the power to administer oaths, and the power to sequester juries of six during inquests.
… . Also to authorise a police officer or other person to enter any place and gather evidence, similar to a search warrant .
to clear a court in certain circumstances and prevent publication of certain evidence. …
Uummmm ..

Lol - if I was in Craddock’s position I think I’d make it clear that I hadn’t overstepped my mark & reached out to the DPP ! It wasn’t me Your Honour, we’re all loyal to you

Seriously tho, IMO - this was simply an awareness statement. It was not intended to imply anything other than the fact that there has been a submission tendered to the DPP by Police.

This is a dreadful & unimaginable situation to have occurred & I’m sure I’m safe to say We All want the truth to prevail. I’m trying to have faith & to remain objective, to absorb & think carefully, and to remember that journalists get paid by headline attention !!

All IMO.

 

[Warshawski]

It is a 9 year old "cold case". I wouldn't think it has a huge priority in the ODPP case load.

As heartbreaking as this is SA, I tend to agree.

I have no idea what their resources / deliverables / capabilities are, but sadly I doubt this ranks highly in the triage status of all the other submissions before them.

IMO, the ‘urgency’ has long passed, because William’s definitely gone; most probably dead; just a little boy who disappeared off the face of the earth, and was allowed to because he had no public identity - due to the demands of ‘others’ for secrecy.
Will we ever know ? Maybe not us, but the truth will always eventually prevail.

<modsnip - political commentary>

 

[Warshawski]

Yes they have had plenty of opportunities and as far as we know have come up with nothing to further Williams case

I was always taught ’beware the hidden gem‘.

Is there or isn’t there ? Time will tell I guess

 

[JBowie]

Why do you think the DPP believes it will take approx. 4 more months to make a decision?

Yep four more months. This first came to light back in late June.

As I have opined before, it's likely at the bottom of a large pile of current cases with real chances of successful prosecution.

If I were a betting person, I'd lay odds that the ODPP will eventually decide not to proceed with the proposed charges.